workspace_text_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive safety profile, and the description adds real value on top: skipped binary/non-UTF-8 files are reported, counts are exact, and max_matches bounds returned lines rather than scanning. This exceeds what the annotations convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Tight, front-loaded prose with no filler; the core purpose leads and the caveats follow. Dense but each clause (null vs empty list, counts exact, skipped-file resource) carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, and the description still adds behavior (skipped files, exact counts, linked immutable resource). It is nearly complete for a 6-param read tool; missing only a note on case_sensitive/regex interaction.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter semantics. It does well for the nuanced ones (extensions: leading dot optional, null = all, empty = none; max_matches limits returned lines, not scanning) but leaves query, path, regex, and case_sensitive undocumented, so compensation is only partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search lines by literal text or regex.' Clearly a content-search tool, distinguishable from workspace_find_files (by name) and workspace_read_file. Lacks an explicit sibling callout but the purpose reads unambiguously.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the operation (search text in a workspace path), but no when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as workspace_find_files is given. An agent must infer the right situation for content search versus filename search.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.